In response to the shocking October report, Moores wrote an editorial for the March 2004 issue of Forbes Magazine summarizing the findings and airing his contention that the UC was engaged in racially preferential admissions.  But what followed was a prime illustration of how far the UC Regents had swung to the left.  In 1995, when the Board ended affirmative action, every one of the Regents was an appointee of a Republican governor.  At the November 2001 meeting which established comprehensive review, five of the voting Regents were Democratic appointees, joined by another three Democrats serving by virtue of their elected state office. 

There were also five Democrat appointees present for the March 18, 2004 meeting of the Regents’ Education Committee.  The meeting, which followed Moores’ fateful column, resulted in the passage of an unprecedented resolution.  Not only did it stubbornly reiterate the Committee’s devotion to comprehensive review, but the resolution also specifically condemned Moores’ public comments. 

This public reiteration of support for comprehensive review made clear that the Regents saw nothing wrong with a racial diversity achieved on the backs of better qualified whites and Asians.  But the condemnation of Moores – simply for pointing out the elephant in the room – is disturbing evidence of the depth of the radical commitments of the UC’s top policymakers.

Both the concept of diversity and the admissions policy of comprehensive review prey on the public’s sympathy for the general – and generally reasonable – principles of fair play and opportunity for all.  The problem is that the proponents of diversity – and comprehensive review – abuse that trust by operating a very different UCLA admissions regime.  Having here exposed UCLA’s corrupt admissions practices, we can call diversity and comprehensive review what they are – a racial sham foisted on all tax-paying Californians.